High Dynamic Range

[Picturesofthelowcountry]

http://www.picturesofthelowcountry.com/photos/640173933_5w8Xv-X3.jpg

[Picturesofthelowcountry]

I would like to talk about this subject with others; I am new to HDR and would like to get some tips from someone that has a little more experience.

Thanks MIke

[pathfinder]

HDR can be quite fun and visually entertaining.:thumb

Unless you can convince me that there are three different images in your recent posts, I am going to temporarily delete the first two threads. One post of this image requesting discussion seems sufficient.


I use Photomatix Pro and CS4. I create my HDR files in CS4 and then drop them into Photomatix for Tone Mapping. I tend to prefer images that are hard to be certain were shot as HDR images, rather than the haloed variety that seems popular on the Web.

I like your image, with the lovely detail in the grass. I find the grass far more interesting than the sky. I think I might crop most of the sky in the first grey, just above the pink light in the sky. I don't find the grey tones that compelling in the sky. Maybe they need more contrast in the top of the sky. I don't like the way the horizon bisects your image. Less sky and more grass and water might work better for me.

[dlplumer]

OK, tell us what software you used, how many images you merged and the EXIF data etc.

I can tell you that image looks pretty good, although it is posted too large. The foreground is a bit soft for my taste, but the HDR processing looks good.:thumb

Tell us how you did it and what specifically you would like feedback on.

Dan

[Nikolai]

Nice image (albeit highlights are still blown out)

IMHO:
"Conventional HDR" (tone mapping) seems to work best when dealing with highly detailed pictures with very complex lighting pattern (e.g. inside a cathedral).
More natural, simplistic case (e.g. sunset, like yours) are best approached by simply compositing a few layers (with bracketed exposures adjusted in RAW module) and proper masking/blending.
That is, of course, if you, like yours truly, strive for natural look. But if the typical HDR halos are essential for your goal - tone map away! :thumb

[Picturesofthelowcountry]

First to Pathfinder, The reason for the second post was that I only got one response from the first. I wouldn’t really know how to prove to you that I used three separate images, other than say I import into lightroom and use the Photomatix Plug-in and tone map from there. I bought the software about a week ago so I’m not that familiar with it yet. As far as all the feedback on my picture I really do appreciate it and see your point. The haloed shots have their place but the natural look does it for me as well.

To DLplumer, I am not sure how to get the exif info on the picture, is there a way I can pull from Lightroom? As far as the size that was just an option that I clicked. As I mentioned I have had this software for about a week and I would like to talk to people about what they do and at the same time get a little feedback on what I do.
Well with all that said, thanks for the feedback and have a great night and day tomorrow!

Mike
This is about as far as i would take it from a natural state if i had a place to use it or unless a client requested it.
http://www.picturesofthelowcountry.com/photos/641529678_95sr8-XL.jpg

[Picturesofthelowcountry]

Nice image (albeit highlights are still blown out)

IMHO:
"Conventional HDR" (tone mapping) seems to work best when dealing with highly detailed pictures with very complex lighting pattern (e.g. inside a cathedral).
More natural, simplistic case (e.g. sunset, like yours) are best approached by simply compositing a few layers (with bracketed exposures adjusted in RAW module) and proper masking/blending.
That is, of course, if you, like yours truly, strive for natural look. But if the typical HDR halos are essential for your goal - tone map away! :thumb

Thanks, I have a great backyard to take pictures of this was taken fronm my condo balcony, i apreciate your feedback